A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[PaulB]

As I have no reputation to protect Paul,I do not appear as ridicullus as you.You have ,as I claimed,suggested the reason Nichols was on the streets that night was for the purpose of prostitution.Suggested was the word I used,so I haven,t failed to understand anything.
You haven't said anything like it?.It,s been the main point of your postings,but if you now want to claim Nichols had another purpose in Bucks Row lets hear it.

Whether you have a reputation or not has no bearing whatsoever on how ridiculous you look. Yes, you said I have "suggested" that the ONLY REASON - see that word ONLY? - Nichols was in Bucks Row was for prostitution. I haven't said that at all. I said that the best construction that can be placed upon the accumulated evidence is that she was engaged in prostitution. I also stated over and over and over that the definitive proof you demand doesn't exist, which forces us to base our conclusions on the accumulated evidence. You don't understand this, don't want to understand it, and have now resorted to attributing to me things I never said or twisting my words.

And just so you know, you wrote, "Well Paul you have suggested that prostitution was the only reason Nicholls was in Bucks Row.How you come to that judgement I fail to understand." (my italicisation) Now, I have explained that the accumulated evidence is that Nichols was engaged in prostitution, which is how I come to the conclusion that she was in Bucks Row for that purpose. You, however, have stated that you fail to understand that. THAT acknowledgement that you fail to understand is why I said you fail to understand. But you say you "haven't failed to understand anything". There really isn't any point in discussing anything with you.

[Trevor Marriott]

You can produce copies of those reports Trevor? Quite a deal of correspondence is claimed to have existed,but has never been produced. What you have written would be grounds for suspicion,which I have said,are valid,but proof,and you can refer to your own posts over time,are not so easily come by. In fact ,I could refer you to your posts on Eddowes threads,where your advice regarding proof,mirrors my claims on this thread.Or I cold cite Paul's expressed opinion of you as being disruptive.Which do you prefer?
Well Paul you have suggested that prostitution was the only reason Nicholls was in Bucks Row.How you come to that judgement I fail to understand.I can offer two other possible reasons.One is that she was just passing through,the other that she was taking a tempory rest.

Ok,lets put an end to this fiasco you and Baron have created

What evidence can either of you produce which conclusivley negates what is included in my previous post which clearly shows the victims were engaged in prostitution, and the circumstance of their deaths allows us to draw a proper inference to show that at the time of their deaths that is exatly what they were doing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

As I have no reputation to protect Paul,I do not appear as ridicullus as you.You have ,as I claimed,suggested the reason Nichols was on the streets that night was for the purpose of prostitution.Suggested was the word I used,so I haven,t failed to understand anything.
You haven't said anything like it?.It,s been the main point of your postings,but if you now want to claim Nichols had another purpose in Bucks Row lets hear it.

[PaulB]

You can produce copies of those reports Trevor? Quite a deal of correspondence is claimed to have existed,but has never been produced. What you have written would be grounds for suspicion,which I have said,are valid,but proof,and you can refer to your own posts over time,are not so easily come by. In fact ,I could refer you to your posts on Eddowes threads,where your advice regarding proof,mirrors my claims on this thread.Or I cold cite Paul's expressed opinion of you as being disruptive.Which do you prefer?
Well Paul you have suggested that prostitution was the only reason Nicholls was in Bucks Row.How you come to that judgement I fail to understand.I can offer two other possible reasons.One is that she was just passing through,the other that she was taking a tempory rest.

Harry,
I have NOT said that the only reason Nichols was in Bucks Row was for prostitution. Nor have I said anything like it. Having failed to understand what I did say, you now fail to understand things I didn't say. You are now being utterly ridiculous.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You can't, but I can give you this, prostitution is BAD


"Most psychologists believe the long-term psychological harm resulting from prostitution is comparable to that from rape or domestic violence. Beyond the Streets highlights that 76% of those involved in prostitution experience some form of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The core experiences of violence and psychological trauma associated with prostitution are disempowerment and disconnection with others. Internally these experiences often cause a ‘split’ between the mind, body and spirit."



"Individuals involved in prostitution often develop complex coping mechanisms and rituals to minimise their pain and brokenness:

• Dissociative disorders (e.g. disconnection, distancing)
• Anxiety disorders (e.g. fixation, memory loss, panic attacks, flashbacks)
• Substance abuse (leading to long term addiction and mental illness).
• Sleeping disorders – oversleeping insomnia
• Depression
• Self harm
• Eating Disorders
• Obsessive compulsive behaviour"

https://www.streetlight.uk.com/the-facts/


Read this site Ally, and tell me if you see those envolved in this program have the same sexism that I have.

And we haven't even talked about sexually transmitted diseases, suicide cases or social and religious view of prostitution.

If you could go back in time, and present this information to the five - perhaps with some included - what do you suppose the women might have said back to you? Perhaps they would lecture you on the facts of their lives, or perhaps they would admit that what they were doing was not good. Perhaps both? What do you think, Baron?

At the height of the Ripper murders Barnardo was a recognisable figure in the East End, known for his charity work and preaching. He would visit doss houses and urge prostitutes to place their children into his care, rather than run the risk of them being suddenly orphaned. It was during one of these visits to 32 Flower and Dean Street, that Barnardo, in a letter to the Times newspaper wrote, 'I found the women and girls thoroughly frightened by the recent murders, one poor creature, who had apparently been drinking, cried bitterly, we're all up to no good and no one cares what becomes of us, perhaps some of us will be killed next'. He later viewed the body of Elizabeth Stride at the mortuary and recognised her as one of the women who had stood around him in the kitchen. Prophetic words indeed.
Source

[harry]

You can produce copies of those reports Trevor? Quite a deal of correspondence is claimed to have existed,but has never been produced. What you have written would be grounds for suspicion,which I have said,are valid,but proof,and you can refer to your own posts over time,are not so easily come by. In fact ,I could refer you to your posts on Eddowes threads,where your advice regarding proof,mirrors my claims on this thread.Or I cold cite Paul's expressed opinion of you as being disruptive.Which do you prefer?
Well Paul you have suggested that prostitution was the only reason Nicholls was in Bucks Row.How you come to that judgement I fail to understand.I can offer two other possible reasons.One is that she was just passing through,the other that she was taking a tempory rest.

[Mark J D]

I don't know about that, but if you were the one in red in that podcast, then you sure look very young (and beautiful) to my eyes

This is going from embarrassingly stupid to worryingly creepy.

M.

[Mark J D]

... where would the media outlet find "expert reviewers"? Ripperologists are the people best suited to assessing The Five and Rubenhold has done and is doing her very best to denigrate and diminish them. We are the [men?!?] not taken seriously.

Hi Paul. Kind of you to respond. Believe it or not, I actually wrote a version of your added point in my original text, then deleted it for the sake of brevity! From which you can take it that I agree entirely.

Another thing I cut out was a bit about the pre-Rubenhold vapourings of media insider Joan Smith, who has produced more than one piece of insightless anti-Ripperology garbage whose nasty flailings would, in a rational society, have earned serious public criticism. Example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jan/08/gender.uk. (For the record, I've seen two by her that even misuse the same quotation in the same way: I think it gets to be a habit...)

M.

[The Baron]

It's been a while since I've argued with a kindergartener so I've forgotten the rules.

I don't know about that, but if you were the one in red in that podcast, then you sure look very young (and beautiful) to my eyes



The Baron

[Ally]

Good, it is your turn now!

The Baron

So you've now been reduced to the arguing level of stating "I know you are but what am I?" Or would this be, "I'm rubber, you're glue"? It's been a while since I've argued with a kindergartener so I've forgotten the rules.

[The Baron]

Finally Baron says something that's not totally idiotic on the subject.

Good, it is your turn now!



The Baron

[PaulB]

The problem with any book whose arguments proceed on the basis of omitted and manipulated evidence is that the general reader, having no expert knowledge and trustingly expecting honest use of sources, does not know when s/he is being misled and, consequently, is 'swayed' by stuff that actually belongs in the bin.

The only way this kind of situation could be meaningfully addressed would be for high-status, high-circulation media outlets to commission serious reviews from expert reviewers. And anyone who expects that to happen is an idiot.

M.

Absolutely true. Regarding your second paragraph, where would the media outlet find "expert reviewers"? Ripperologists are the people best suited to assessing The Five and Rubenhold has done and is doing her very best to denigrate and diminish them. We are the not taken seriously.

[Ally]

Finally Baron says something that's not totally idiotic on the subject. Well done. I mean it's the least you can do since your sole research into the psychological/social effects of prostitution comes from merely copying and pasting the two quotes on that websites page. You at the very least owe them copyright money.

[The Baron]

I encourage you all to visit the site mentioned in my post above, and if possible to try to help those

"105,000 individuals in the UK are believed to be involved in prostitution. The vast majority of these are women."

to exit this difficult situation


And of course we can donate to support this great and much valuable project:

https://www.streetlight.uk.com/the-facts/

The Baron

[Mark J D]

... I haven't read her book,but I have seen numerous references to it.Most appear to be swayed by her arguements...

The problem with any book whose arguments proceed on the basis of omitted and manipulated evidence is that the general reader, having no expert knowledge and trustingly expecting honest use of sources, does not know when s/he is being misled and, consequently, is 'swayed' by stuff that actually belongs in the bin.

The only way this kind of situation could be meaningfully addressed would be for high-status, high-circulation media outlets to commission serious reviews from expert reviewers. And anyone who expects that to happen is an idiot.

M.